Westminster Politics 2024-2029

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

It’s obvious, but spending less time on X is a significant step forward to a happier life.

If everyone ditched twitter the world would be a better place.

I think it’s perfectly fine to have a low opinion of those who spend time on the platform, and use it to reinforce and exaggerate their own opinions and perspectives.

 

[Drainy]

what a disaster Labour is in. I think the Burnham election move is utterly fraught with unknowns. He's by far the best option in terms of overall appeal, but in a party of hopefuls now trying to create their own supporter groups, he's on the back foot and will have an instant section of the party MPs and members against him.

Furthermore, creating a by-election in a "safe" seat in a situation where the country hates your party, in today's political climate, is basically asking for an embarrassing result. People may vote against him for no other reason than to express venom at Starmer and may even like Burnham . The vitriol in UK politics is high. I think brexit, and many other factors opened the door, or perhaps the better word would be "validated" a form of "hurt yourself to feel a temporary high" style of politics in the UK. Some of the polling out of the council elections screams at this. Heavy reform support in brexit areas meaning people were voting on national politics in a setting where you should be considering tax rates, bin collection etc.

Could I see Burnham winning, getting the leadership and doing a good job? Absolutely. Could Burnham, Labour continue on the same path of shit government and the public now be so open to spite politics that it all goes tits up and gets even worse? Absolutely.

Personally I think labour left reform alone, or just copied them, for so long that they have now normalised and rationalised Reform to the national level so embarrassment of voting in that direction has evaporated. Labour needs to "reform..heh" the entire policy direction of government into something distinct, appealing and viable.

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

 

[WPMUFC]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

There's always that incentive, it's just considering whether having the PM in your seat outweighs that desire of wanting to choose the "hurt yourself to feel a temporary high" style of politics. Rationality and irrationality in politics is a fast moving spectrum.

 

[Bobade]

Doesn't really bother me. I find it funny that there are constant attempts to smear him and they're all pretty small time pathetic things while people like Farage are going around doing extremely dodgy shit and he gets a free pass.

Oh, completely agree with you here. But for me personally, I can slag off more than one politician at once, at varying degrees.

 

[Bobade]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

You're spot on here, I'm just not sure how many people will put that level of thought into it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

A PMs seat never seems to be under threat, so there has to be something in this.

But you would also think they given their workload and focus, their constituency would come very near the bottom of their priorities.

 

[Drainy]

A PMs seat never seems to be under threat, so there has to be something in this.

But you would also think they given their workload and focus, their constituency would come very near the bottom of their priorities.

Yeah but they have power so whoever is there to pick up the calls and emails when the PM can't will have delegated authority and high accountability if they mess up

 

[Drainy]

You're spot on here, I'm just not sure how many people will put that level of thought into it.

If we've been shown anything in the last couple of decades its that voters are very capable of smeering themselves with shit when told to by the media

 

[Dave Smith]

Madness? How is a calculated risk to try and get their only popular politician into Parliament madness? Madness was stopping him standing in Gorton in the first place. Or incredible selfishness and hubris from Starmer and co I suppose.

He should've been allowed to stand in Gorton 100%. That he wasn't permitted was ridiculous and one of a litany of reasons why Starmer should go, as that move was all about trying to save his position rather than what was good for the party/country.

However, at this point Burnham going for a by-election seat in an area that just voted Reform in the local elections is incredibly risky. As I mentioned above, everyone knows that it is a vote for a PM so it is going to have increased turnout, which I always find increases the Right's vote and Reform will absolutely carpetbomb it with advertising/leafleting considering they have significant numbers already voting for them.

For me, Labour need to get a grip on the situation. Rolling the dice on a by-election in a area that has significant numbers Reform supporters is boarderline suicidal. I mean, what happens if he loses? It would be absolute chaos.

 

[MaMa given red]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

Slight problem here.

 

[Dave Smith]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

Why wouldn't they do it?

A) They are going to vote Reform regardless.
B) Banter
C) Burnham is a Commie
D) They think if they don't let him in, it may trigger a GE.
E) Labour/Burnham only love immigrants.

Don't underestimate people's inability to think logically, especially when you're talking about an event that is going to result in a higher turnout.

 

[Smores]

Why wouldn't they do it?

A) They are going to vote Reform regardless.
B) Banter
C) Burnham is a Commie
D) They think if they don't let him in, it may trigger a GE.
E) Labour/Burnham only love immigrants.

Don't underestimate people's inability to think logically, especially when you're talking about an event that is going to result in a higher turnout.

From what I've seen Labour voters didn't vote Reform on mass. They either didn't vote or went Green/Independent/Lib Dem.

You'd expect a lot of those would turn out for Burnham given his popularity in the area.

Let's remember Reform benefited from the state of other parties more than a surge in votes for them.

 

[Buster15]

From what I've seen Labour voters didn't vote Reform on mass. They either didn't vote or went Green/Independent/Lib Dem.

You'd expect a lot of those would turn out for Burnham given his popularity in the area.

Let's remember Reform benefited from the state of other parties more than a surge in votes for them.

Yes

 

[Dave Smith]

From what I've seen Labour voters didn't vote Reform on mass. They either didn't vote or went Green/Independent/Lib Dem.

You'd expect a lot of those would turn out for Burnham given his popularity in the area.

Let's remember Reform benefited from the state of other parties more than a surge in votes for them.

Let's see. I personally see a high turnout (much higher than the local and 2024 elections) with the additional voters largely being similar to those that voted Brexit but hadn't voted in years or ever before. Maybe I am being cynical.

 

[Shinjch]

Let's see. I personally see a high turnout (much higher than the local and 2024 elections) with the additional voters largely being similar to those that voted Brexit but hadn't voted in years or ever before. Maybe I am being cynical.

Reform will throw a lot at it. It will take up so much media space and will be another chance to give Labour a kicking. I would be with you in not seeing it as a sure thing at the moment; hopefully we are wrong.

 

[Drainy]

Reform will throw a lot at it. It will take up so much media space and will be another chance to give Labour a kicking. I would be with you in not seeing it as a sure thing at the moment; hopefully we are wrong.

Hopefully they do and fail.

They have far more money than any other party so would be great to see them spinning their wheels a bit

 

[Shinjch]

Hopefully they do and fail.

They have far more money than any other party so would be great to see them spinning their wheels a bit

Absolutely, it just doesn't feel like that is where the momentum is going at the moment in the country. Obviously, I hope my feelings are wrong on it and it can be the start of a change in momentum.

 

[Dave Smith]

Hopefully they do and fail.

They have far more money than any other party so would be great to see them spinning their wheels a bit

The Bond Vigilante's are out for Burnham already. Couple this with Reform being able to throw the kitchen sink at it and it is becoming ever more difficult by the day.

 

[RedSky]

If everyone ditched twitter the world would be a better place.

I think it’s perfectly fine to have a low opinion of those who spend time on the platform, and use it to reinforce and exaggerate their own opinions and perspectives.

Damn straight it would. If only more people understood this.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Damn straight it would. If only more people understood this.

Too many people define their lives by it, and I'm not talking about the billionaire owner.

 

[Maticmaker]

We will stop the boats and everything else will somehow be fixed.

No, obviously it is irrational idea that stopping the boats will fix everything else.... but this has become a sort of search for 'the Golden Fleece'; or a 'Cross to Carry' that each new/would be PM has to promise to do which has become a handy distraction from reality.

It is not just a distraction for any PM, its a Flag for Farage/Reform to hoist to rally people, many of whom are already suffering from cost of living issues, unemployment, nowhere to live and zero prospects going forward; which lets be honest no one has any real 'quick-fix' answers for, given the state of our current world and the prospect of climate change in the future and of course Brexit, in the past.

Hence the equivalent of being able to 'Slay the Dragon' ....cut the 'Gordian knot', with one blow, etc. all would help a leader struggling with a host of other intractable problems.

I am sure the last few Tory PM's, Starmer and whoever follows him, even if it is the 'King of the North', will all think what fillip it could have been if I could have solved that one!

 

[decorativeed]

No, obviously it is irrational idea that stopping the boats will fix everything else.... but this has become a sort of search for 'the Golden Fleece'; or a 'Cross to Carry' that each new/would be PM has to promise to do which has become a handy distraction from reality.

It is not just a distraction for any PM, its a Flag for Farage/Reform to hoist to rally people, many of whom are already suffering from cost of living issues, unemployment, nowhere to live and zero prospects going forward; which lets be honest no one has any real 'quick-fix' answers for, given the state of our current world and the prospect of climate change in the future and of course Brexit, in the past.

Hence the equivalent of being able to 'Slay the Dragon' ....cut the 'Gordian knot', with one blow, etc. all would help a leader struggling with a host of other intractable problems.

I am sure the last few Tory PM's, Starmer and whoever follows him, even if it is the 'King of the North', will all think what fillip it could have been if I could have solved that one!

The thing is, most people voting to 'stop the boats' are nowhere near the boats and don't read the news or look at immigration stats. They just see the Facebook propaganda and parrot it.

The boats could come down to zero for a year and they'd still see it as the big current issue.

 

[RaddyRed]

Wes Streeting as head of the Labour Party surely guarantees a Reform government after the next election?

 

[Red in STL]

Why does it seem that there are posters on here who are better at answering questions than any Labor leader?

It's Labour not Labor, and it's no different in the US, most posters in here can answer questions better than any member of the US ruling classes

 

[GueRed]

Tbh I don't see any valid reason to support them..
other than harbouring resentment towards non whites etc

 

[Smores]

The thing is, most people voting to 'stop the boats' are nowhere near the boats and don't read the news or look at immigration stats. They just see the Facebook propaganda and parrot it.

The boats could come down to zero for a year and they'd still see it as the big current issue.

Whilst numbers are at levels where people can rightly state stuff like "we're adding the population of Leeds every year" then it's going to be tough to argue. The issue does exist, even if we disagree with them on the reasons why it's a problem.

New housing stock has been way below migration levels for several years now. The government shouldn't be letting that happen and there needs to be more social housing.

I'd like Labour to pick a couple of the logical impacts where we're poorly managing the results of immigration and tackle those. It won't stop the racists knuckle draggers but it removes any semblance of logic they do cling on to.

 

[Frosty]

Tbh I don't see any valid reason to support them..
other than harbouring resentment towards non whites etc

I don't think we can explain the rise of far right parties in Europe but racism alone.

And I really do think Europe has a racism problem, both overtly and structurally, although that's a debate for another place.

But that racism has been around for a long time, including periods where the far right got a fraction of the support they do now.

The living standards of hundreds of millions have stagnated or regressed since the financial crisis. Mainstream political parties have failed to make people better off. So people are looking for alternatives.

Politics faces a conundrum. It is much easier, as we have seen today, to weaken human rights protections to take more action against illegal immigrants, than it is to take decisive financial action given the role of global finance. That's not a conspiracy, or a call for a communist revolution. But we do need a way of making the economy benefit the masses who feel abandoned.

In the UK, Attlee did this through the welfare state in the 1940s, and Thatcher took decisive action in the 1980s when Attlee's model was judged to be failing. It's about time for another shift.

 

[decorativeed]

Whilst numbers are at levels where people can rightly state stuff like "we're adding the population of Leeds every year" then it's going to be tough to argue. The issue does exist, even if we disagree with them on the reasons why it's a problem.

New housing stock has been way below migration levels for several years now. The government shouldn't be letting that happen and there needs to be more social housing.

I'd like Labour to pick a couple of the logical impacts where we're poorly managing the results of immigration and tackle those. It won't stop the racists knuckle draggers but it removes any semblance of logic they do cling on to.

We aren't adding the population of Leeds every year via small boats though, are we?

And those figures always neglect to subtract outward migration and deaths.

And yes, nail on the head about social housing. That's the actual issue we're dealing with.

Dwellings per person is actually marginally above what it was 20 years ago. Trouble is that most of the new ones are 1 or 2 bed flats in city centres and aren't affordable for many or suitable for families.

 

[africanspur]

Tbh I don't see any valid reason to support them..
other than harbouring resentment towards non whites etc

So why do reform or a reform like party not win every single election then?

 

[Maticmaker]

The boats could come down to zero for a year and they'd still see it as the big current issue.

Exactly; because of the failure of others there is now it seems a 'baked-in' expectation for a new PM, to 'test their mettle' (so to speak) by bringing this to a dead stop.

Either that, or don't make the promise in the first place! Will the new PM (if there is to be one) be brave enough to take either route?

 

[Smores]

We aren't adding the population of Leeds every year via small boats though, are we?

And those figures always neglect to subtract outward migration and deaths.

And yes, nail on the head about social housing. That's the actual issue we're dealing with.

Dwellings per person is actually marginally above what it was 20 years ago. Trouble is that most of the new ones are 1 or 2 bed flats in city centres and aren't affordable for many or suitable for families.

No it's not small boats but that's just Reform marketing as it's symbolic of easy unconstrained entry. I don't think many Reform voters are solely concerned with those coming in on boats.

Given the NHS and birth replacement rates we probably do need 200k every year for the foreseeable. No one will stand up and say that though.

Train carers and nurses, train people to build social housing, and make it easier to have kids. These are all Labour type solutions that you can pitch as solutions to solving current needs and the need for extensive migration in the future. Solutions you can contrast with Reforms deportation plans that will only damage the economy.

 

[Frosty]

Wealth of Britain’s 157 billionaires now equal to 22% of country’s GDP

https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...britain-billionaires-gdp-rich-list-inequality

The wealth of Britain’s 157 billionaires is now equivalent to more than a fifth of the country’s entire GDP, according to analysis by the Equality Trust – a fivefold increase since 1990.

The charity describes the trend, based on data in this year’s Sunday Times rich list, as Britain’s “ghost GDP”: headline economic growth increasingly disconnected from everyday life.

“Every year politicians point to GDP growth as proof the economy is working. Ghost GDP shows us what that ambition has done to the rest of us because for most of us, it doesn’t feel like the economy is working at all,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the Equality Trust.

“Ghost GDP and the hollowed out economy it creates, tells you what the rest of us have lost as a direct result.”

Gabriel Zucman, an economist at University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, said that while in the postwar decades GDP growth numbers were broadly indicative of how income was growing for most of the population, “today, there is a total disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and the reality of income gains for most people”.

He added: “The upsurge of income and wealth among the super rich – and the accounting of manipulations of multinational companies in Ireland – are distorting macroeconomic numbers.”

When the Sunday Times first published its rich list in 1989, 15 billionaires held a total of £27bn – about 4p in every pound of GDP at the time. Today, the Equality Trust calculates that 157 billionaires hold just under £670bn – more than 22p in every pound.

“Workers have endured the longest pay squeeze in living memory,” said Sahni-Nicholas. “But the richest 50 families now hold more wealth than the poorest 34 million of us combined.”

The trust’s data showed that globally, billionaire wealth had grown from 2.5% to 14.1% of GDP since 1990. Britain’s trajectory – 4% to 22% – is even more extreme.

Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said that as total wealth had grown, so had the gaps between the wealthy and the less wealthy. “The growing value of wealth has meant that, even though traditional measures of wealth inequality haven’t risen, the absolute gaps between typical households and those at the top have grown significantly,” he said.

“Today, if someone with typical levels of wealth miraculously saved all of their earnings throughout their entire working life, it would no longer be enough to move them up to the top of Britain’s wealth ladder.”

 

[T00lsh3d]

Is there a possibility that people vote reform as a protest vote (or a lot of them do anyway). Burnham will be seen as something different, not part of the despised Westminster apparatus…..so people will be far happier to vote for him and feel less need to use their vote as a protest?

Just free thinking here

 

[Maticmaker]

Wealth of Britain’s 157 billionaires now equal to 22% of country’s GDP

How much of a surprise is this?

Is there any comparision to the famous 80:20 split identified by the Pareto Principle?

 

[Xeno]

The electorate are idiots.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

[

We aren't adding the population of Leeds every year via small boats though, are we?

And those figures always neglect to subtract outward migration and deaths.

And yes, nail on the head about social housing. That's the actual issue we're dealing with.

Dwellings per person is actually marginally above what it was 20 years ago. Trouble is that most of the new ones are 1 or 2 bed flats in city centres and aren't affordable for many or suitable for families.

We don’t need so many new houses - improving the old housing stock that’s unliveable would go a long way. But who is going to do that? It’s small builders, landlords or people looking to refurb for themselves. You also have people living in the wrong housing stock - but let’s not go round the houses on stamp duty again.

Flats are a problem, esp now with more and more people working from home.

 

[Frosty]

How much of a surprise is this?

Is there any comparision to the famous 80:20 split identified by the Pareto Principle?

I think the report and full story does cover both these points.

First, it is a surprise in the sense that wealth disparity in the UK is accelerating at a far more rapid rate than other similar countries, and markedly up since Thatcher left power in 1990.

Second, the authors criticise the way in which these rises in wealth amongst a tiny fraction of the population is used to point to economic growth, especially in GDP, but this 'growth' masks wide and increasing inequality.

Again, we all know people who simply have not been made better off economically over the past two to three decades. To say to voters "the GDP has gone up!" doesn't mean much when you cannot afford to feed your kids without going into debt each month.

And the Pareto principle can apply to measures like income tax. We are great at taxing income.

It is less easy to apply to wealth. There is not the same causation between a billionaire's direct taxes being paid each year to fund the welfare state, and the trillions of wealth held in the UK and around the world, which is inflating GDP but does not have the same causative benefits for the wider population.

We are awful at taxing wealth. And that is true of most countries.

To add to that, millions of working people are in full time work, and still do not have enough to make ends meet (as shown by the billions of pounds of in-work benefits spent by the government to 'top-up' wages each year). Yet it is easier to play around with the income tax limits of millions, as they are not as mobile as those with extreme levels of financial resources.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Thinking on it, the voters in the constituency he's running in would have to be utterly stupid to not elect him.

You could have a Prime Minister as your local MP and he's incentivised to keep you happy..

Or you can smeer shit all over yourself and have an irrelevant Reform MP who can't do anything and if he's anything like old Nige will barely bother turning up

Also, hasn't he lived there for over 25 years?

I think it is probably worth the gamble. Not that I'm a massive fan of Burnham, I just think it is politically expedient.

 

[Vitro]

How much of a surprise is this?

Is there any comparision to the famous 80:20 split identified by the Pareto Principle?

Pareto principle says roughly 20% of people hold 80% of the wealth (1:4), whereas 157 billionaires, 0.00023% of the UK population, hold 20% of the wealth (1:87,000). Pareto does not apply.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Wealth of Britain’s 157 billionaires now equal to 22% of country’s GDP

https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...britain-billionaires-gdp-rich-list-inequality

The wealth of Britain’s 157 billionaires is now equivalent to more than a fifth of the country’s entire GDP, according to analysis by the Equality Trust – a fivefold increase since 1990.

The charity describes the trend, based on data in this year’s Sunday Times rich list, as Britain’s “ghost GDP”: headline economic growth increasingly disconnected from everyday life.

“Every year politicians point to GDP growth as proof the economy is working. Ghost GDP shows us what that ambition has done to the rest of us because for most of us, it doesn’t feel like the economy is working at all,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the Equality Trust.

“Ghost GDP and the hollowed out economy it creates, tells you what the rest of us have lost as a direct result.”

Gabriel Zucman, an economist at University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, said that while in the postwar decades GDP growth numbers were broadly indicative of how income was growing for most of the population, “today, there is a total disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and the reality of income gains for most people”.

He added: “The upsurge of income and wealth among the super rich – and the accounting of manipulations of multinational companies in Ireland – are distorting macroeconomic numbers.”

When the Sunday Times first published its rich list in 1989, 15 billionaires held a total of £27bn – about 4p in every pound of GDP at the time. Today, the Equality Trust calculates that 157 billionaires hold just under £670bn – more than 22p in every pound.

“Workers have endured the longest pay squeeze in living memory,” said Sahni-Nicholas. “But the richest 50 families now hold more wealth than the poorest 34 million of us combined.”

The trust’s data showed that globally, billionaire wealth had grown from 2.5% to 14.1% of GDP since 1990. Britain’s trajectory – 4% to 22% – is even more extreme.

Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said that as total wealth had grown, so had the gaps between the wealthy and the less wealthy. “The growing value of wealth has meant that, even though traditional measures of wealth inequality haven’t risen, the absolute gaps between typical households and those at the top have grown significantly,” he said.

“Today, if someone with typical levels of wealth miraculously saved all of their earnings throughout their entire working life, it would no longer be enough to move them up to the top of Britain’s wealth ladder.”

Looking forward to finding out how Ed Sheeran made the Top 50 Taxpayers in the UK next year but none of these people.